Wednesday, August 15, 2007

We Can't Make John Edwards "Comfortable"

This essay comes from Dave J. at
Wandering the Ether blog.

It is not often that I am sucked into discussing my views on specific politicians, much less their flavor of the week dramas, but having read dozens of blogs over the last few days pointing out Elizabeth and John Edwards' overt bigotry, I can't help but weigh in with my ninety-nine cents worth of overly opinionated ramblings.

Somewhere amidst the recent buzz surrounding Elizabeth Edwards' comment: "We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press," people have forgotten who John Edwards really is. If one spends much time investigating Edwards career, it becomes clear that he has done little to dispel the notion that he is a bigot. In his memoir “No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner,” Democratic Party strategist Robert Shrum recalls asking Edwards what his stance was on gay rights, to which Edwards replied: 'I don't feel comfortable around those people.' "Those" people? Excuse me? Isn't inclusiveness a basic principle of the Democratic party? Think back to the '04 election, and you might recall that it was Kerry-Edwards who took the first pot shot at Dick Cheney regarding his daughter being a lesbian. Do you see a pattern emerging?

"We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman." You know what scares me the most about that statement? It was a slip. An attitude meant to be kept secret, uttered only within the hallowed halls of the uber privileged. It causes me to wonder, what else does that imply? What other social attitudes are the Edwards' and their supporters keeping hidden? Where there is one "-ism," there are always more that follow. Is it even possible to be exclusively biased towards one specific group? Or is one bias simply indicative of many others?

I suppose Edwards could try and explain away his true motives by hiding behind his faith, as he did recently during the Democratic YouTube debates, where he was again put on the spot regarding gay marriage, this time by a Southern Baptist Minister, where he again confirmed his opposition, citing his faith as preventing him from advocating gay rights. Does it get anymore ironic then that? Edwards, trying to explain to a Baptist Minister the Christian stance on gay rights?

In my opinion, to express any sort of public disdain for a specific group of people is mentally, and socially regressive. To be fair, saying that you feel "uncomfortable" around a certain group of people is appropriate in select circumstances. For example, I would feel uncomfortable spending a whole lot of time around confirmed murderers. This is because I would worry they might try to murder me. See the logic? Is John Edwards too sexy for his own good? Does he worry that spending time around gay folks might cause them to be overcome with desire to make hot and steamy love to him? Seriously. Please explain this to me because I'd really like to understand why anyone would feel "uncomfortable" around someone else, based solely on their sexual preference.

To change the focus slightly; there has also been speculation amongst bloggers that if Barack or Hillary wins the Democratic ticket, rather than team up with each other, the winner would find it necessary to include Edwards as the VP in an attempt to gather red state votes. If this does happen, what then? Who will you vote for? The more we find out about John Edwards, the more it complicates the decision, for me at least. I'm not sure if I could bring myself to vote for any ticket that included Edwards.

Dave J., Wandering the Ether


Dave J. said...

Thanks for the cross-posting friend. Your fight to raise awareness is an inspiration to us all!

Francis Holland said...

Thank you, Dave J.!

AAPP said...

Great Post Dave J! Great link Francis!